Jacob Kopnick

The Commerce Department did not provide enough assistance to three exporters of Indian shrimp as required by law during antidumping duty administrative reviews, the Court of International Trade said in a Jan. 3 decision. During a review of frozen warmwater shrimp from India, Indian exporters Calcutta Seafoods, Bay Seafood and Elque & Co. were not granted sufficient help after requesting it from the Commerce, CIT said, ordering Commerce to reconsider the antidumping rates it placed on the three companies' shrimp imports, with specific instructions to reopen the administrative review to further help the importers provide adequate information for the review.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 25-31:

Detention and demurrage disruptions are causing devastating damage to U.S. intermodal carriers and are placing large burdens on the shipping and transportation industry, the Harbor Trucking Association said in a new report. The association, which represents U.S. drayage carriers serving West Coast ports, and TradeLanes, a technology company focused on streamlining global commodity trade, surveyed HTA members and found that more than half reported critical negative effects on their business from the detention and demurrage costs. Detention and demurrage is common in the industry as well, with 64% of respondents saying that they incur them on more than 15% of their containers with the average price around $200 per container. Once the charges are levied, governmental relief is rarely given, with 80% of respondents saying they got charges reduced 0-25% of the time. The charges cost more than money, evidenced by the majority of respondents saying the invoices take at least 45 minutes to complete.

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 27 declined to dismiss a nail importer's challenge to Section 232 steel "derivatives" tariffs, but stopped short of finding in the importer's favor. In a lengthy opinion that drew an even longer dissent, two members of a three-judge CIT panel ruled against the government's motion to dismiss PrimeSource's claims that the derivatives tariffs ran afoul of the deadlines for tariff changes under Section 232, but held that more information was needed before it could render a final decision.

Russian steel company NLMK filed a lawsuit against U.S. Steel alleging the Pittsburgh-based company misled the Department of Commerce when it objected to the Section 232 exclusion requests filed by NLMK. The company filed the complaint in a Pennsylvania state court Jan. 22 and is seeking more than $100 million in damages for unfair competition. NLMK previously reached a settlement with the government over what it said was improperly denied exclusion requests (see 2010200029).

Shipman & Goodwin LLP promoted the head of its international trade practice Alfredo Fernández to partner in the Hartford, Conn. office, the firm announced via a press release on Jan. 25. Fernández previously worked as an associate at the firm and as an aerospace engineer before his career in law began in 2012.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 18-24:

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 21 ruled that Midwest Fastener's strike pin anchors are not nails, and are not subject to antidumping duties on steel nails from China. After a series of decisions wherein CIT told Commerce to reconsider its scope ruling that the strike pin anchors are subject to AD duties, the trade court ruled that an Aug. 28 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision in a related case answers the question of scope coverage definitively, holding masonry anchors from OMG aren't nails and can't be covered by an identical AD duty order on steel nails from Vietnam (see 2008280039). In light of that definitive decision, CIT departed from its earlier decisions that held the scope's coverage of masonry anchors ambiguous, and directed Commerce to perform a more thorough analysis. “Commerce should now make its determination in accordance with the Court of Appeals’” holding, CIT said, giving the agency 60 days to submit its remand redetermination.

A Texas federal court on Jan. 21 dismissed a $6 million legal malpractice suit brought against two trade lawyers at Steptoe & Johnson, holding it lacked jurisdiction over the case. Thomas Trendl and Gregory McCue had been accused by Allied Fitting of failing to advise it to file protests to maintain its eligibility for refunds on its steel imports (see 2010140049), but Southern Texas U.S. District Court Judge Kenneth Hoyt ruled that the suit covered activities in Washington, not Texas.

Florida-based construction materials manufacturer Gardner-Gibson agreed to pay a $160,933 settlement to resolve allegations of customs laws violations, the Department of Justice said Jan. 20. Gardner-Gibson, which makes and imports products related to residential and commercial construction, allegedly imported a roofing underlayment product made in China without the proper country of origin labels. An individual brought the charges against Gardner-Gibson under the False Claims Act and said the company knowingly failed to apply country of origin markings on its imports in an effort to evade customs duties. The relator will receive 20% of the $160,933 payment, and Gardner-Gibson will also pay the relator's attorney fees of more than $40,000, DOJ said. “It is important that all U.S. businesses have a fair playing field,” said U.S. Attorney Brian Moran. “This case began with a relator alerting the government to the unlawful conduct, helping the government police the import marketplace to ensure fairness.” The settlement resolves allegations and there was no determination of liability, DOJ said.